See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 03 March 2015
<scribe> scribe: Jeff
SZ: Wayne Carr has raised issues
with my examples.
... been discussed over email.
... he thinks we can adequately define "editorial"
... gave a suggestion
Mike: We won't resolve before we
send to the AC
... with an annotation of open issues
... what you cited is what the AB discussed
... Wayne may think these are not persuasive, but they are
still the AB's examples
... so we should expose to the AC
Steve: Jeff
?
[ Silence ]
Steve: no particular opinion?
[Jeff: correct]
Steve: Simplest thing is to go
with my draft text
... possibly adding a comment to the last paragraph - some
people believe that can add a definition
Mike: We are trying to get the
AC's advice
... where to draw the line: flexibility v. IP issues
... IP dictates process steps; exclusion calls
... is flexibility worth the risk?
... our CG can frame it; we can't decide
Steve: I see a way forward
incorporating Wayne's input and David Singer's input.
... I will update draft text based on discussion and Wayne's
comments
... small change
... draft letter received small comments from Jeff - that we
had done a lot
... text seemed to imply we did a little
... I pointed out small change to my paragraph to make
clear.
... Jeff?
Jeff: Fine.
Mike: We did more than we signed
up for. We can always move stuff to 2016.
... we don't need to resolve everything for Process2015
Steve: CG came to consensus so it
is asking for input from AC.
... we've also kept the AC in the loop
[David Singer joins]
Jeff: Who signs the letter?
Steve: Same 3 people as last time (Steve, Chaals, Jeff)
Jeff: So I can send it out as soon as I have the letter?
Steve: No, we still need the document from Chaals.
Dave: We also need a diff document.
Steve: Dave, did we get all the issues that you nailed to the door?
Dave: I'll need to check.
Steve: Back to issue-152
... it's an ongoing discussion - my note for inclusion in the
document merely indicates different viewpoints
... should go ahead with the not - even though exammples are
note best
... I could add your silly example.
David: Could we put it into cover letter rather than process document?
Steve: Makes sense.
David: We shouldn't have an issue pointer in the process document.
Steve: I will move the long text
to the cover letter
... the issue is whether we can adequately define editorial
change
... in a manner that can be adequately verified, w/o an
exclusion call
... I can put that in without the examples
... would that work?
Dave: Probably.
Mike: It's fine.
Jeff: Yup.
ack
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask about the AC meeting
Jeff: Do we you want time in AC meeting about Process2016?
Steve: Wait for AB meeting
Jeff: How much time do you need for Process2015?
Steve: 15 minutes plenary; 45 minutes breakout
Mike: Raman and I would both be
quite interested in a discussion of Process2016
... we would both be interested in a discussion about CGs
... CGs merged with WGs
... Raman worries that CG outputs get thrown at WGs
... that doesn't motivate people
... a defined jump start would be better
<Dsinger_> Suggest we ask the ac, in the cover letter, whether anyone needs a breakout.
<Dsinger_> I thought we already have the notion that a CG fsa can become a wg fpwd
<Dsinger_> Fsa - document from the CG that has had a final spec agreement signed
Jeff: Panel about Process2016?
Mike and Steve: We're in!
<Dsinger_> What can you do today, what could we improve?
Dave: What is the problem? It is not hard to bring a document from a CG to a WG?
Mike: I'll write that up in the next day or so.
Steve: Plus we have a standing issue: what about CGs should be in the process?
<trackbot> issue-128 -- Lack of test cases is a major contributor to schedule delay. -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/128
Steve: Chaals has suggested that we close this issue.
<Dsinger_> Agree that this is not a process but an operations issue
Mike: Anything else we could do in the process document?
Steve: We put some text into "implementation experience". That's already been done.
[Steve reads the text]
Mike: I would close it if there is no concrete proposal to fix it.
Steve: Exactly.
Mike: Who raised it?
Steve: me. I had to write issues raised with Process2014.
Mike: Yes, this is more in the hands of the Chair and Team.
David: Process says the right thing. Beyond that it is operations.
Steve: Exactly.
... Resolved. Close Issue-128
<SteveZ> RESOLUTION: Issue-128 is closed with reference to the final paragraph of section 7.2.4 Implementation Experience
Steve: I should update Issue
151.
... not enough time to discuss Issue 100.
<Dsinger_> Ok
Steve: next week: prior to AB meeting we will do a quick review of open items for Process2016.
[adjourned]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/not/note/ Succeeded: s|silence/\| Silence | Succeeded: s/... no particular opinion/Steve: no particular opinion/ Succeeded: s/zakim, make minutes// Succeeded: s|Thx, apologies for lateness and bus/street noise|| Succeeded: s/issue-128?/Topic: Issue-128/ Found Scribe: Jeff Inferring ScribeNick: jeff WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Dave David Dsinger_ Jeff Mike Mike_Champion P9 SZ Steve SteveZ dsinger timeless trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Found Date: 03 Mar 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/03-w3process-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]